Believing in Liberty

Many believe in theoretical liberty but aren’t ready to see it in practice.

There is a long tradition of liberty in this country. It was a desire for greater liberty that moved early revolutionaries to challenge the greatest empire in the world. Liberty was the central focus of our nation’s founding documents. Liberty has, in times past, inspired brave men and women to take up arms in defense of family, faith, and freedom. Many have willingly sacrificed their God-given right to life, in order to protect liberty for future generations. History has repeatedly proven that no army can defeat a people motivated by this desire to secure or defend liberty at all costs. Recall the inspirational words of the patriot, Patrick Henry, “give me liberty or give me death!” This sentiment is not bound by the American tradition. Classical antiquity had the famous, republican stoic, Cato, who, in the famed revolutionary-era play by Joseph Addison cries out:

It is not now time to talk of aught
But chains or conquest, liberty or death [i]

The black flags carried by the defenders of Barcelona during the year-long Siege of Barcelona in 1713, read “Live Free or Die” (a motto adopted by the state of New Hampshire in 1945). The national motto of Greece is “Liberty or Death”. Honduras’s motto reads, “Free, sovereign and independent”. San Marino’s motto is most succinct, “Liberty”. Liberty is a universally desired right, if not always an inheritance.

Because of the exalted status of this natural right you would think it quite an easy task to convince people to fully embrace liberty; yet too often it is treated as a nebulous idea. We define liberty by its synonym, freedom, but ignore the practical implications of what it means to live in a free society.

So what does it really mean to be free?

I contend that liberty and freedom are best understood in terms of how humans act and interact with each other. This mechanism of human action is best exemplified in the market process. By nature, all beings are self-interested creatures. Even when we give charitably of our substance, we must admit to the gratification we feel when lifting others up. Adam Smith remarked on what he saw as the nexus between self-interest and charity,

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. [ii]

We are motivated to take actions that we perceive will have profitable outcomes for us personally; and, as a result, society at large benefits. Sometimes this is measured in dollars and cents; other times there is an emotional or spiritual dividend. Furthermore, when two parties meet to discuss how they might fill each other’s needs, they do so with the understanding that either of the two can walk away from the bargaining table at any time. This process is absolutely essential to liberty. When we speak of restrictions or infringements upon our liberties, we’re often referring, in a practical sense, to our inability to transact business, freely associate, keep and direct our resources, or live in peace enjoying the fruits of our labors. These are essential cogs in the wheel of free enterprise. Free enterprise, as a system, is founded on three basic elements:

1) Private Property Rights

The right to own property is a derivative of our right to life because our lives are spent making decisions about how to direct our faculties, which are our primary possession.

Our labor, mixed with resources, creates a homestead right to physical property. This concept moved humanity beyond the hunter/gatherer age through to the agricultural, industrial, and technological revolutions.

2) Freedom of Choice

In acknowledging that each person has their own value scale and that value itself is subjective, we must admit also that the choices individuals make in directing their labor and resources, i.e. voluntary exchanges, should be left to them.

Appropriating private property for the “greater good” is an illegitimate violation of personal liberty.

3) Self-Regulating Markets

Adam Smith used the phrase “invisible hand” to describe the process of self-interested buyers and sellers seeking to optimize their outcomes by analyzing factors such as supply & demand. Fully functioning markets have the least degree of coercive external interference.

Government interference in markets creates malinvestments which send the wrong signals to producers and consumers, usually in the form of a distorted price mechanism. Inevitably, this leads to a boom/bust cycle, unduly harming the most vulnerable members of society.

Many programs, supported by conservatives and liberals alike, fly in the face of the tenets of free enterprise. Consider the strong support for public roads, regulation of food safety, social security, licensure laws, and public utilities. While obviously very convenient, these programs are bought and paid for with at least a measure of liberty.

Is it worth it? Many believe some minimal trade-off of individual liberty for collective security or convenience is justified. While it is true that viable solutions to today’s problems may be proposed by civil servants, it takes a lot more discipline, and an inclination towards greater personal responsibility, to allow the system of free enterprise to reveal the best solutions.

Prison inmates are provided three square meals a day, a job, a roof over their heads, leisure time, protection, and education… all free of charge; but most would trade all of these conveniences for their freedom. How ironic that those who benefit the most from a multitude of free government services would be willing to give them up in exchange for their freedom. The more government provides for us, the less we are responsible for ourselves, and our addiction to convenience and safety moves us ever closer to a state of bondage.

So, the question I pose is this: Do you really believe in liberty? Do you believe that free enterprise is the best system for bringing prosperity to the greatest number of people? Do you believe entrepreneurship, innovation, and ingenuity can solve society’s problems? If so, you’re ready to see liberty move from theory to practice. Welcome to the movement.

Author’s Note: In our next few installments we will discuss why free enterprise is the solution to society’s problems, and what practical steps we can take in Utah to advance a system of free enterprise.

Riley Risto is Director of the Center for Free Enterprise. He holds a masters in business from Brigham Young University and works as a community banker. He is a passionate advocate of Austrian economics, outdoor enthusiast, husband and father of six children. He lives with his family in Midway, Utah.

May I play the devil’s advocate for a moment? First I wonder about your perspective of Adams Smith. Do you agree with everything he said or are there limits and qualifications? If so what are they and where do they begin and end? I ask this because I believe that we are expected to move forward with our current tools and circumstances under the principles of liberty not backward. I submit this as pragmatic not progressive. My second thought is this, would the prison inmates use their “freedom” wisely or are they desiring their freedom to endager themselves and especially others through their lack of personal liberty? Your logic here is good on the surface and I like your point. Could we break down the terminology in the next post with just a bit more complexity that shows the different definitions of liberty and freedom in the contexts of the different ways of dealing with the violation of law and the rights of others verses the correct use of liberty and its affect on freedom and how to foster them both?

I To answer your question regarding Adam Smith, no, I do not agree with everything he said. There certainly areas where I part ways with him; the most notable being his description of capital gains in some instances as salaries. This was a critical error that directly influenced Marx. However, Smith is arguably the most recognizable economist in history and people listen to him. He is also a great jumping off point to the world of free market economics. The prisoner example was a bounded one, meaning any further extrapolation beyond what I spelled out is speculation. The point was to draw a stark contrast between those who have a measure of freedom but take it for granted and those who are not free but would give up a myriad of conveniences to be free. Who knows what they would do with their freedom on the outside. The last point you make might be better directed towards Shiloh Logan as the director of the center for individual liberty. For an initial article I intentionally limited the scope to leave some fodder for future articles. Thanks for reading and commenting.

@Riley Risto @Allen After I got your answer I went ahead and deleted my comment since it was really written to you and didn’t benefit the general reader as much as it should have. Thank you for the answering comment.

I To answer your question regarding Adam Smith, no, I do not agree with everything he said. There certainly areas where I part ways with him; the most notable being his description of capital gains in some instances as salaries. This was a critical error that directly influenced Marx. However, Smith is arguably the most recognizable economist in history and people listen to him. He is also a great jumping off point to the world of free market economics. The prisoner example was a bounded one, meaning any further extrapolation beyond what I spelled out is speculation. The point was to draw a stark contrast between those who have a measure of freedom but take it for granted and those who are not free but would give up a myriad of conveniences to be free. Who knows what they would do with their freedom on the outside. The last point you make might be better directed towards Shiloh Logan as the director of the center for individual liberty. For an initial article I intentionally limited the scope to leave some fodder for future articles. Thanks for reading and commenting.

Riley Risto is Director of the Center for Free Enterprise. He holds a masters in business from Brigham Young University and works as a community banker. He is a passionate advocate of Austrian economics, outdoor enthusiast, husband and father of six children. He lives with his family in Midway, Utah.

Our Mission

Libertas Institute clears the path of opportunity for each Utahn by removing obstacles that limit freedom.